"Many of the most respected photographers on assignment all over the world trust Aperture to organize, edit and deliver their images," said Rob Schoeben, Apple's vice president of Applications Product Marketing. "With its simpler interface and lower price, anyone can take full advantage of Aperture's power."

"At the end of the day, it's all about the quality of the image," said Sports Illustrated contributing photographer David Bergman. "Even before I begin making adjustments, Aperture's new RAW processing gives me better images with more visible detail and better color rendering than any other program I've tested."

Priced at just $199 and featuring a new, easier user interface designed to be more intuitive and accessible, Aperture 2 now lets users navigate between Viewer and Browser modes with a single key command. Screen real estate is maximized for images with an all-in-one heads up display that allows users to toggle between library, metadata and adjustment controls in a single tabbed inspector. The All Projects view, modeled after iPhoto's Events view, provides a poster photo for every project and the ability to quickly skim through the photos inside, and the integrated iPhoto Browser offers direct access to all the events and images in the iPhoto library.

Performance has also been enhanced in Aperture 2 so it's faster to import, browse and search large volumes of images. Embedded previews let photographers caption, keyword and rate images as they are being imported, and with the ability to export images in the background, photographers can continue working while images are processed to JPEG, TIFF, PNG and PSD file formats. Quick Preview allows users to browse RAW images in rapid succession without having to wait for files to load, and the Aperture library database has been re-architected to provide fast project switching and near instantaneous search results, even when working with extremely large libraries of 500,000 images or more.

Apple's next-generation RAW image processing is at the core of Aperture 2 offering uncompromising image quality and precision controls that let users fine-tune the image profile for each of their cameras. New tools for improving and enhancing images include Recovery for pulling back "blown" highlights, Vibrancy for selectively boosting saturation without adversely affecting skin tones, Definition, which offers local contrast for adding clarity to images, Vignette & Devignette filters for providing professional visual effects and a true soft-edged Repair and Retouch brush for quickly and easily removing blemishes, cleaning up sensor dust and cloning away problem areas.

Aperture 2 works with Mac OS X, iLife, iWork, .Mac and Apple print products, so any image in the Aperture library can be accessed directly from within other applications, such as iMovie, Keynote and Pages, and even from within Leopard Mail. Now with .Mac Web Gallery support, Aperture users can publish their photos once to view them on the web, iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV. Books in Aperture 2 feature new theme designs, layout tools, customized dust jackets (including full-bleed) and foil stamped covers.

Pricing & Availability

Aperture 2 is available immediately for a suggested retail price of $199 (US) through the Apple Store, Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. Owners of previous versions of Aperture can upgrade to Aperture 2 for just $99 (US). Full system requirements and more information on Aperture 2 can be found at Apple's Aperture Website.

An avalanche of Aperture users unhappy that 10.5.2 didn't provide RAW support for cameras released in the past 3 months or so has descended on any forum willing to listen. Then just a few hours after 10.5.2. is released, Apple shuts them all up.

Priceless.

Aside from that bag of hurt, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?

No whining here... I'm one of the thousands upon thousands who have been anxiously awaiting an update to this invaluable tool. Timing couldn't be better either, considering it just so happens I'll be driving right by the Apple Store today

I downloaded the trial version of A.2 and the serial number they sent via email doesn't work. I noticed in the fine print of the email that it says Aperture 1.5....maybe they haven't updated their numbers yet....anyone else have any trouble with the free trial?

I can't get it working either. I had to download it twice, the first time I downloaded it, it was still 1.5. I downloaded it again and now I've got 2 finally, but they're still handing out 1.5 serial numbers

Well, they've finally sorted the website issues...
Anyway, it's still the good ole Aperture with a facelift. I mean, the image controls are the same. Maybe something has changed image-handling wise but I don't care. Somehow Lightroom results look so much better, take for example its auto white balance - it *really* gets things right. But do it in Aperture and you get that artificial nonsense correction that doesn't cut it at all. Anyone else experienced this? I tried to like Aperture, but Lightroom with all its quirks does image correction just so much better. Maybe it's because I use film and not digital... who knows.
What are your opinions?

I'm just a hobbyist with a Canon 350D and the stock lens, but I tried the demos of both Lightroom (1.1) and Aperture (1.5).

I liked Aperture better in nearly every respect, from the interface/workflow through to image quality. I particularly liked the exposure correction tool in Aperture for landscape shots. I'm always careful to not blow the highlights, but despite that the sky is often washed out. With aperture I can get the sky back to a nice natural blue with nice fluffy clouds, without doing any harm to the shadows.

Both programmes kick the pants off Canon's DPP.

Sadly, I'm not sure I can justify the expense of either. For that money I could buy a Metz flash and a 28/f2.8 lens, which would probably do far more to improve my photos than either piece of software.

I'm also UK based. Aperture previously cost £230 - maybe $199 will tranlate in to something more affordable. It's not on the UK site yet, so I'll have to wait and see. It might be tempting at £130.

Anyway, it's still the good ole Aperture with a facelift. I mean, the image controls are the same. Maybe something has changed image-handling wise but I don't care.

The folks over at Inside Aperture seem to disagree. As for the auto-white balance tool, I know you just used this as an example, but I have always seen auto-correction tools as a good place to start, but never as a single "please fix me" button.

I haven't even bothered trying out the Pentax software yet, although I hear there is some concern that no third-party software can tackle everything the OEM software can, as often times the camera manufacturer does not release every single detail of their RAW format. I'm quite pleased with the results I get from Aperture however, and see no reason to add to my workflow.

Quote:

Sadly, I'm not sure I can justify the expense of either. For that money I could buy a Metz flash and a 28/f2.8 lens, which would probably do far more to improve my photos than either piece of software.

I'm also UK based. Aperture previously cost £230 - maybe $199 will tranlate in to something more affordable. It's not on the UK site yet, so I'll have to wait and see. It might be tempting at £130.

I would assume it will be comparable in price to Logic Express and Final Cut Express, both of which recently dropped from $299US to $199.

I think that purchasing an external flash and a fast prime portrait lens would do wonders for your photos, but they're still not going to prevent hot spots and underdefined shadow spots. This is also just a hobby for me, but I think that $199 (or £130 as the case may be) is a small price to pay to ensure my hobby is that much more productive and enjoyable! (Of course I'm also lucky that Pentax chose to ensure compatibility with their classic lenses and I have been able to pick up fast primes for dirt-cheap: A 50/f2.0 and 135/f2.5 both for about $140)

Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?

Just say no to MacMall. They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries. There are better retailers out there.

Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?

Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc. Handy for a hobbiest like me, invaluable to a professional. iPhoto's color correction tool is primitive in comparison as well. Its organisational tools are far beyond iPhoto's (at least the '06 version, I haven't used iLife '08 and with Aperture and Final Cut Express in my toolkit, see no reason to purchase iLife).

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrian.oconnor

Hmmm, that puts a cat amongst the pigeons

A quick search on ebay reveals a nice semi-pro EF 35-70 lens for less than £50. I'm sure I could also find an old pre-digital prime for similar money or less. I think that might be my next step.

I used to love the 50mm prime on my old Nikon 35mm SLR.

Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...

Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.

While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.

This is an Aperture 2 thread. Please don't litter it up with off topic inquiry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck

Well, they've finally sorted the website issues...
Anyway, it's still the good ole Aperture with a facelift. I mean, the image controls are the same. Maybe something has changed image-handling wise but I don't care. Somehow Lightroom results look so much better, take for example its auto white balance - it *really* gets things right. But do it in Aperture and you get that artificial nonsense correction that doesn't cut it at all. Anyone else experienced this? I tried to like Aperture, but Lightroom with all its quirks does image correction just so much better. Maybe it's because I use film and not digital... who knows.
What are your opinions?

Why did I read a blurb on the PR about a new engine but I glossed over the 103 new features and didn't find any substantial info about this "new" Engine? Hmmm we'll as soon as the demo is downloadable we'll know soon enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorpit

Aperture semms like a really neat program but I don't think I use iPhoto to its fullest potential. Other than working with RAW image and non-destructive editing which I have to admit is pretty cool, I don't see the need to spend the money on this. Am I missing something?

Do you have a nice DSLR? I agree Aperture is overkill for many. I probably won't buy it until I get a nice DSLR and start practicing my photography skills a bit better. iPhoto will have to hold me over until then.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

An avalanche of Aperture users unhappy that 10.5.2 didn't provide RAW support for cameras released in the past 3 months or so has descended on any forum willing to listen. Then just a few hours after 10.5.2. is released, Apple shuts them all up.

The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.

A new version of Aperture doesn't help if it still fails to support your camera.

The folks over at Inside Aperture seem to disagree. As for the auto-white balance tool, I know you just used this as an example, but I have always seen auto-correction tools as a good place to start, but never as a single "please fix me" button.

Yeah. You're right. But Lightroom's white balance works so right you really don't need to tinker any more. Well, or you could say you already have a good start and tweak from there. Not so with Aperture where it's the same using either manual mode or a loupe. I just can't get the image work right in Aperture, and there will always be something I don't like about the image, like a slight color cast or general lack of 'polish'.
Can't figure out how to attach images to posts.

The only way your post makes sense is if Apple added support for cameras that weren't supported yesterday. Does it? The compatibility list doesn't look any different.

10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.

anybody else get a weird messup with safari and this article? The text appears up higher in the tab. Its the only time I've ever noticed it happen. And I've loaded the article several times and it happens every time so it wasn't a one time fluke. I can't post a picture here it seems, and I'm not setting up some online account just to post one screenshot but its wierd.

10.5.2 added RAW support for a number of cameras that was missing in 10.5.1. However this did not translate into Aperture 1.5.6 support, and RAW files from these cams have only been readable by Aperture with v 2.0 which came out today.

That article you linked doesn't say anything about Aperture 1.5 vs 2.0 support. Are you sure that Aperture 1.5 support wasn't updated as a result of 10.5.2? I thought it used the OS frameworks to deal with that. I mean, my current camera model is considerably newer than my copy of Aperture and iPhoto, but both work just fine.

Personally, I find non-destructive editing to be worth the price of admission alone. Not just non-destructive editing, but multiple versions of non-destructive editing. With one RAW 10mb master, I can have many different versions. One in colour, one in sepia, one in B&W, one in B&W with contrast filters, one with different cropping, etc, etc.

Aperture's system may be more powerful, but iPhoto '06 is non-destructive as well.

Quote:

Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not).

I think you got the wrong impression or some misinformation. The Canon site puts EOS on all Canon SLRs, digital or film. Canon's site also says that the 40D supports EF, EF-S, TS-E, and MP-E lenses. I don't know what those last two are, but at least EF was common for film SLRs. I see nothing that says it won't take the old film lenses.

Quote:

I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...

The fact that the IS has to be re-bought for every lens was a show-stopper for me. In-body IS is improving as new models are released, so it's not as big of an advantage to have it in the lens as it used to be. That said, I'm going multi-system for reasons I won't go into here, I did just pick up a used 300D.

Well first off, my understanding is that Canon DSLR bodies are not compatible with pre-digital lenses (perhaps the EOS series is different, but the prosumer-line such as the 40D is not). I looked at the Rebel, but found the lack of spot-metering to be a show-stopper. I also liked the K10D's in-body stabilisation (meaning even a 40-year old M-series lens takes advantage of anti-shake). Sure it's not as effective as the IS in the Canon series...

Secondly, I wouldn't consider a 35-70/f3.5-4.5 at £50 to be much of a comparison to a f/2.0 50mm prime. Perhaps it's semi-pro in comparison to the standard f/4.0-5.6 that's out there. The kit available for my body was a 18-55 f/4.0-5.6 and apparently is well-liked, but I needed something faster and opted for a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8. It was well worth paying $450 for my lens instead of $89.

While we are (or rather, I am) digressing off-topic here, my next toys are going to be a 50-135 f/2.8 hypersonic focus and a 50mm f/1.4 prime.

Canon changed from its FD lensmount decades ago. The EOS lensmount has been around since the '80's.

Actually you can get adapters that will allow FD lenses to work on modern EOS cameras, digital or not. You can't use any auto features though.

You can also get adapters for most other manufacturers lenses as well, including the superb Zeiss lenses.

But, all EOS lenses are compatible with their digital equivalents.

What you might be thinking is that older lenses, designed before digital became popular, are not optimized for digital shooting. This is true for all manufacturers, but does not mean the lenses in question won't work well.

A far as speed goes, IS lenses have obvioted the need for very fast lenses on the grounds of slow shutter speed shake. Am F4 lens is now equal to an F2 lens in that regard.

That doesn't mean the depth of field issues can be addressed with the slower lenses, or the ease of composing in dark areas.

I carry my 24 to 105mm F4 IS lens when I do a walkaround, and it's more than adequate in speed, except for extreme conditions.

I don't understand how you break out the EOS 40D (which I just bought for my daughter) from the other EOS cameras. This is a fine camera, which many pro's use as a secondary back. All of Canon's EOS cameras will take Canons full frame lenses, but the "C" type lenses are only meant for the "C" type cameras.

One advantage to lens based IS is that you can see the effects in the viewfinder, which can't be done with body based IS. This does matter. With body based IS it's difficult to tell if it being effective or not, and you can be unhappily surprised.

No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.

No, I actually own Photoshop and I can perform all the photo editing I need with it. I read that Lightroom may be superior to Aperture... although I wanted to test out Ap.2 to see how it compared to version 1. Shame that it's so bloody slow on my computer.